Sunday, December 16, 2012

Recognizing reality

We have a problem. I’ve known we’ve had a problem for a long
time. It’s only in the last few years though, after I left my career in
engineering to take a PhD in glaciology, studying the changing Greenland
ice sheet, that the magnitude and timeframe has become clear. It is now
all but impossible to limit global warming, the warming of mean surface
air temperature, to less than +2°C from pre-industrial temperatures [1, 2].
Understand also that temperatures over land rise more than this global
average, and extremes are likely to be further exaggerated by positive
feedbacks. All but impossible because to have even a fifty-fifty chance
of keeping warming below that somewhat arbitrary threshold, global
greenhouse gas emissions would have to peak within the next five years
or so then fall rapidly for decades: “…the threshold of 2°C is no longer
viable”[3].

This fall in emissions would have to happen against the trends of
increasing wealth in growing economies and growing populations. Recent
history, even with the largest economic slowdown in decades, offers us
no hope as global emissions are currently rising faster than ever [2].
It is a fantasy to suggest that the global community is able to
collectively choose to peak and decline emissions within the next few
years.
The lack of action is not for lack of knowledge. The data and
scientific understanding have been clear for a long time and yet over
the last decade carbon emissions have increased by a greater amount than
in any previous decade (between 2002 and 2011 emissions increased by
2.5 GtCyr-1 from 7.0 to 9.5 GtCyr-1 [4]). There is
nothing in the data to suggest that we have recognised the seriousness
of our situation. In fact the reverse is true: we are accelerating into
disaster faster than the scientific community thought possible even a
decade ago.

As a scientist, I’m not supposed to use emotive words like disaster;
however, that is what we are facing – an avoidable disaster of our own
making. Reticence amongst the scientific community has probably
contributed to our civilisation’s inaction. We know enough to say, and
importantly to do more. As I write this, however, my office is quiet, half empty. My colleagues are attending a conference on the other side of the planet, elevating their carbon emissions to some of the highest in the world.

Two glimmers of hope I held until recently are fading. The first was
offered by researchers quantifying the Earth’s endowment of fossil
fuels. Their evidence suggested there simply weren’t the hydrocarbon
reserves available to greatly perturb the climate system [5]. This is the question I explored for my master’s thesis [6]
a few years ago. However, as extraction of unconventional resources
continues to expand and as Arctic melting unlocks probably significant
northern reserves, the hope of these resource limits applying any
meaningful and timely brake diminishes. Secondly, our emission growth is
linked to our economic growth. Without increasing demand from the
expanding wealthy population the hydrocarbon reserves will remain
unexploited. The threat of economic collapse, in our case linked to
unserviceable debts, is familiar and appears plausible at least for
developed Western economies.

Exactly three years ago I blogged, with
evidence, about the economically induced 2008 emissions peak.
The global economy has proved far more resilient than I imagined. In
any case, were western economies to collapse, the remaining four fifths
of the global population are unlikely to need asking twice before taking
up any hydrocarbon supply slack and attempting to resume the emission
growth trajectory.
The time for hope is over; it is simply illogical to continue
believing that dangerous future climate projections can be mitigated
through national and international agreements, or through pro-active
action. We now have to consider life in a 4 °C warmer world, described
here in a report for the World Bank[7].

Our global civilisation appears to be facing a protracted period of
decline. Most likely this will be due to the damaging impacts of climate
change but if, against the odds, we are spared the worst climate
impacts it will only be due to decline from crippling energy shortages
or global economic collapse. There is no easy way down for our seven,
going on nine billion population, not from the height we’ve now reached.
The first half of the 21st century is likely to represent a new peak of
human civilisation, the first truly global civilisation, eclipsing our
species’ many previous peaks. From here, we can only now hope the cost
of climbing so high won’t be so damaging as to deny our distant
descendants their own future triumphs.

Hello! This is Ugo Bardi - I tend to overextend myself on the Web by writing a lot of stuff. Presently, my blog in English is titled "Cassandra's Legacy". In English, have another blog a little more esoteric, titled "Chimeras" The first is dedicated to sustainability, the second to mythology, history, and art. In Italian, I write on "Effetto Cassandra."

14 comments:

Co-incidentally, I have read that article through EnergyBulletin.net. It is not clear to me why Chris suggested peak in CO2 emissions in 2008-9. Unfortunately, there is no REAL adaptation for 4°C global warming by the end of the century.

As an Oceanographer, I note that few discuss the impact of global warming upon oceancurrents. Despite the fact that ocean currents account for major climate impacts.

Of particular concern to me is a global circulation system known as "The Great Salt Conveyor". This deep water circulation begins in the waters off East Greenland, the Barents and White Seas and Denmark Strait. The mechanism for this circulation is salt concentration in surface waters due to ice formation in winter. Once the salinity exceeds the threshold, the saline surface waters plummet to the ocean bottom, from which they flow south to the antarctic circumpolar current. This deep water discharge of surface waters pulls the Gulf Stream north into this area, accounting for the ice free fjords of Norway, the climate of Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, Faeroes, Shetlands, Norway, and NW Russia.

Global warming is expected to stop ice formation altogether within a decade or so, which will shutdown this system. Recent satellite data indicates that the Gulf Stream is already flowing due east from the Grand Banks to southern Europe. If the northern circlation is indeed shutdown, we can expect much colder weather in the North Sea and surrounding environs.

Klem, please, try to maintain the debate at a civilized level. Mr Oprisko is correctly noting the role of oceanic currents on the climate system. If you disagree with something that he say, please state your point, but there is no reason to shout "wrong" aloud in this way.

Very clear article. I think he probably speaks for many people in the environmental movement when he says in his first sentence: "We have a problem. I’ve known we’ve had a problem for a long time". And although humanity needs to keep trying to save itself, it seems to be becoming increasingly clear that there is no guarantee there will be a solution. Most of the standard solutions being proposed, on closer scrutiny, can be seen to be highly unlikely to work. Moreover the problems of obtaining consensus and implementing any of them are gargantuan. A much lower overall world population coupled with much more local production and consumption seem to be the only likely solution that can work. How to get there in a managed way instead of being forced into it through a collapse? Earth is going to be around for a long time still. Humanity may or may not.

George, "Global warming is expected to stop ice formation altogether within a decade or so..." I don't think there's any evidence for ice formation stopping. Certainly ice free summers are expected within a decade or so, but not ice free winters.

I've drawn this chart from the PIOMAS Daily Ice Volume Data. It shows the amount of ice growth each year, generated by subtracting the year's minimum volume from the following year's maximum volume. Even if there was zero summer ice, as is likely to be the case soon, there's no evidence in the data that a similar 15+ thousand km3 of ice won't form during the winter. If anything the trend as been for increased winter ice formation. As the summer minimum as shrunk faster than the winter maximum.

But climate scientists are often heard to say the arctic will be 'ice free' by 2020. These people know full well that they mean ice free in the summer only, but they never mention that detail, they let their followers believe that they mean ice fee all year long permanently.

Don't tell people that they actually mean summer only, it will spoil the ruse.

Chris - I believe Dr. Oprisko's larger concern is modification of portions of the global ocean circulation due to the effects of warming. I think there is some evidence that this may in fact be underway, including indications that warm water that previously cooled and sank in gyres on the trip north in the Atlantic towards Greenland is now not sinking and heading directly north into the Arctic Ocean.LCarey

Who

Ugo Bardi is a member of the Club of Rome and the author of "Extracted: how the quest for mineral resources is plundering the Planet" (Chelsea Green 2014). His most recent book is "The Seneca Effect" to be published by Springer in mid 2017

Listen! for no more the presage of my soul, Bride-like, shall peer from its secluding veil; But as the morning wind blows clear the east,More bright shall blow the wind of prophecy,And I will speak, but in dark speech no more.(Aeschylus, Agamemnon)

Ugo Bardi's blog

This blog deals with the decline of the availability of natural resources, climate change, ecosystem disruption and why all that is happening. The future may not look bright, but it is still possible to face it if we don't discount the alerts of the modern Cassandras.Above: Cassandra by Evelyn De Morgan, 1898

Chimeras: another blog by UB

Another blog by Ugo Bardi; it is dedicated to art, myths, literature, and history with a special attention to ancient monsters and deities.

The Seneca Effect

The Seneca Effect: is this what our future looks like?

Extracted

A report to the Club of Rome published by Chelsea Green. (click on image for a link)

Rules of the blog

I try to publish at least a post every week, typically on Mondays, but additional posts often appear on different days. Comments are moderated. You may reproduce my posts as you like, citing the source is appreciated! (not necessarily valid for posts written by authors other than UB)

About the author

Ugo Bardi teaches physical chemistry at the University of Florence, in Italy. He is interested in resource depletion, system dynamics modeling, climate science and renewable energy. Contact: ugo.bardi(whirlything)unifi.it